| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2004 10:48:16 AM · #1 |
Backup backup backup
Just lost some images because my HD failed.
I made a back up of most of my images 2-3 weeks ago.
But I took alot of images in that time.
I managed to get some back from the CF even though I formated the CF card.
So now I'm going to backup images right away so I have them at least in two diffrent places.
Hope you all have your backup in order...if not don't wait. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 11:22:11 AM · #2 |
That sucks!
No chance to get it spinning again (wizzkids?) and at least get the data off of it?
Nowadays I backup a camera download to a CD-RW right away. After deciding/editing/collecting I burn two copies of real durable CD-R's.
The only problem now is that my system is malfunctioning. My CD-player failed and the CD-R recorder is suddenly getting buffer underruns and does three hours on 700mb of data. That's a lot of fun now that I am shooting RAW. :( The only thing that hasn't failed yet is the HD. :)
Need to get a new system anyway, because running Capture 4.1 and sending photo's to Photoshop in 16-bit makes the system unstable. :)
edit: "ubstable" is a strange word
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 18:41:02.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 11:24:15 AM · #3 |
I'm a bit paranoid... My main photo workstation synchronizes its images directory with a fileserver whenever I add a batch to the collection. In addition, I have been periodically burning DVDs in triplicate. 1 copy in my office library, 1 copy in the fireproof safe in the basement, and a third copy at my parent's house. Covers me for disaster and data blips.
I'm getting close to the point where my collection won't fit on a DVD though (probably passed it already) and trying to come up with a better strategy than just burning the whole collection at once.
Some ideas:
(1) Burn a master set every XX period, then burn only new images until the next full backup. Advantage: much faster to stay current. Disadvantage: less effective use of media capacity.
(2) Always burn the full set. Disadvantage: takes forever, even on my speedy burner. Mastering the ISO uses a lot of disk space also.
(3) Burn a monthly disk with only images from that month. Fast, and could probably switch back to CDs which can be more archival in quality than DVDs.
For those of you who make a lot of images, and are good with backups... Do you have other backup systems? Any thoughts on the ideas above?
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:57:21 PM · #4 |
to some degree - with the speed i am able to fill a HD - i leave the data on it, buy a new HD, and just unplug the old one. i can always run it as a slave drive to access the data, and it acts as a 60gig backup.
on top of that i weed through the images, and backup keepers to CD-R or DVD on a somewhat regular basis.
EDIT: i just picked up an 80gig western digital 7200 rpm drive for $30 US
fairly inexpensive media if you ask me.
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 12:58:24.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:02:18 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by soup:
to some degree - with the speed i am able to fill a HD - i leave the data on it, buy a new HD, and just unplug the old one. i can always run it as a slave drive to access the data, and it acts as a 60gig backup.
on top of that i weed through the images, and backup keepers to CD-R or DVD on a somewhat regular basis.
EDIT: i just picked up an 80gig western digital 7200 rpm drive for $30 US
fairly inexpensive media if you ask me. |
Surely you are joking? I'm not a hardware engineer, but I don't believe magnetic media make very good long-term backups, whether they be hard drives or tape. And hard drives I am sure are even less qualified than tape.
Magnetic images fade over time. Tape suffers an additional problem of being wound and influencing itself. But the storage density of a modern hard drive probably introduces it's own problems.
Optical does have problems as well, but quality write-once optical media stored properly should last longer than magnetic media.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:14:39 PM · #6 |
I'm a lazy bastard, I wouldn't dream of doing regular backups on DVD's (and CD's are just not in the picture!) so here is my backup plan:
Hard drive in a USB case at work. rsync every day my photos and other work over to the drive. No fuss and, it is quite future combatible. :) |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:14:44 PM · #7 |
i have them on CD-R or DVD as well as the HD itself.
so the old HD is only one place where they are saved, but easy to access a large number of images by just hooking it back up.
i have decade old HD's that still function fine. i have younger CD's that do not.
i also upload most of edits( printables ) to my web server
in general i really don't trust any of these independently, but assume one of the three will be accessible - the web server with redundant backups is probably the most trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:26:50 PM · #8 |
I think can top the paranoid list ... I run RAID 5 with 4 hot swappable SCSI disk drives, back up everything to an external USB drive, to my laptop, and to DVDs which are stored in a fireproof safe.
That leaves me a few minutes a week, what with all the backing up, to take pictures! |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 02:43:36 PM · #9 |
I think in some cases backing up to a hard drive is ok via USB2 or firewire. Removable internal chassis are also good if you're on SATA or SCSI, but Paralell ATA as a standard doesn't support hot swap so it's a recipe for disaster in most cases.
Near line backup (disk to disk) is typically accepted as a good solution for dealing with "oops, did I delete THAT image??" but it's not usually employed as a long term repository. Try this: drop your removable disk from 4 feet onto a hard floor three times, then do the same with a CD/DVD. I know where my money goes. Hard disks are also extremely sensitive to magnetic fields and electrostatic discharge. I know you don't often drop your disks, but then, you don't often loose data and need to restore it do you? (hope not!)
Magnetic and optical removable media are the industry standard for long term data archival. A quality burner with a quality archival CD media, and a proper storage location will result in better durability than a disk to disk solution. I like the near-line solution as an intermediate, and as mentioned it's fairly cheap to implement. It would be a poor risk asessment indeed that favored thorough dependency on external hard disks to archive years of irreplacable photography.
Even at $1 a disk it's cheap insurance to keep off-site backups. You do need to verify the media after writing - that's why I create an ISO image and checksum it against the media when I'm done. I also burn multiple copies because it's statistically unlikely that the same data regions will degrade on different disks.
A lot of study goes into designing highly available infrastructures and disaster recovery plans... I do this kind of work for a large UNIX systems company which explains my neurotic dedication to data protection :) If you've just got a few snapshots then do whatever works easiest for you. If you have years of irreplacable digital images that you sell or put great effort into, I'd suggest a two-tiered backup plan. It's much cheaper than loosing everything.
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 14:44:19.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 05:01:38 PM · #10 |
I use an external USB 2.0 120gb hard drive and a program called "SyncBack" which is an excellent freeware program. They also have a "pro" version which costs something.
The link is:
//www.2brightsparks.com/
YOu can find good deals on external hard drives, for under $100. A fraction of the cost of Photoshop or a good digital camera.
So, yes, by all means backup. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 07:14:42 PM · #11 |
GetDataBack is the tool i'm using its a very good tool.
Takes for ever to run though, found a lot of images and other files.
I recomend if your HD fails dont use check disk in windows it writes to the disk and could be writeing over your lost images.
I bought an other HD set up the windows again.
Ran the getdataback tool
Got alot of files back but not all of it.
Would have gotten more probably if I hadn't ran the check disk in windows. I did not know then that it would write to the damaged disk.
Live and learn and backup. |
|
|
|
11/01/2004 07:26:35 PM · #12 |
well at least it wasn't a total loss...
;}
|
|
|
|
11/01/2004 07:32:47 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by siggi:
Backup backup backup
Just lost some images because my HD failed.
|
I feel your pain. I just lost a lot of my images due to a system failure. I was able to pull some of them back, but I lost a lot.
Sorry to hear that you lost 'em. I hope you are able to redo the shots, or pull them back from the dead :)
I wil be burning my digital negatives to CD's often, from this point forward. I don't plan on loosing anything again! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 09:47:02 AM EDT.
